Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will remain on Wisconsin’s presidential ballot, despite his efforts to withdraw after ending his campaign. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Kennedy’s legal team inadequately presented his arguments, making it impossible for the justices to address his request.

The court’s decision followed Kennedy’s legal team’s failure to provide sufficient information to fully argue the constitutional grounds for removing his name, as reported by USA TODAY.

The case began after Kennedy ended his presidential run on August 23 and asked the Wisconsin Elections Commission to take his name off the ballot. However, the commission had already rejected his request, citing state law, which only permits removing a candidate’s name in the event of death. Kennedy’s team then appealed directly to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, bypassing the appeals court.

Kennedy's Legal Team Fails to Meet Court Standards

On September 20, the Supreme Court, with a liberal majority, accepted the Elections Commission's petition to take up the case. The court required Kennedy’s legal team to submit a brief by noon the following day. The brief argued that independent candidates like Kennedy faced earlier deadlines than party-affiliated candidates, which disadvantaged them.

Independent candidates in Wisconsin had to certify by August 6, while candidates from political parties, including the Democratic and Republican nominees, had until September 3. Kennedy centered his legal argument on this discrepancy.

Despite these claims, the court ruled that Kennedy’s filing failed to meet the minimum standards necessary for the court to consider the constitutional issues raised. The justices declined to hold oral arguments, citing inadequate briefing.

Wisconsin Election Commission's Role in the Decision

Kennedy’s efforts to remove his name from the ballot came after hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots had already listed him as a candidate and mailed to Wisconsin voters. The Wisconsin Elections Commission originally denied his request, arguing that state law permits candidate removal only in cases of death.

“The only way he gets to not be on the ballot is to up and die, which I’m assuming he has no plans on doing,” said Ann Jacobs, chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Kennedy also requested removal from the New York ballot, but his legal team did not present similar arguments in other states where he had withdrawn from the race.

Dissenting Justices Raise Concerns About Voter Impact

The court’s decision did not avoid dissent. Chief Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley both opposed taking the case. They raised concerns that leaving Kennedy’s name on the ballot might mislead voters.

Justice Bradley warned that including a withdrawn candidate could cause voters to cast meaningless votes, thereby damaging the democratic process.

“The ramifications in this case are immense. Voters may cast their ballots in favor of a candidate who withdrew his candidacy, thereby losing their right to cast a meaningful vote,” she wrote in her dissent.

Final Ruling Emphasizes Inadequate Briefing

In its final ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court made it clear that their decision stemmed from the lack of detailed legal arguments presented by Kennedy’s legal team. The court could not evaluate the merits of Kennedy’s claims related to equal protection, free speech, and freedom of association.

“We simply are unable to make such determinations, given the inadequate briefing presented to us,” the court stated. They emphasized that they did not make any determinations about the legality of Kennedy’s claims but were limited by the quality of the materials provided.

Kennedy’s legal team argued that the different deadlines for independent and party-aligned candidates violated constitutional principles. However, the court found these arguments insufficiently developed to merit consideration.

Justice Bradley Criticizes Court’s Decision

Justice Bradley criticized the court’s handling of the case and accused the majority of applying inconsistent standards. She argued that the court sometimes enforced rules against taking cases prematurely while at other times did not, which led to arbitrary decisions.

“Such arbitrariness by courts is antithetical to the original understanding of the judicial role,” she wrote, highlighting her concerns about the court’s approach to election-related cases.

Eight Candidates Will Appear on Wisconsin Ballot

With the court’s decision, Wisconsin voters will now see Kennedy’s name on the ballot alongside other independent and third-party candidates. Consequently, the state will have eight presidential candidates listed, including Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent Cornel West.

Moreover, Wisconsin’s decision comes amid broader debates over ballot access and the role of independent candidates in the 2024 election. Kennedy’s effort to withdraw after ending his campaign highlights the challenges that candidates face when seeking to remove themselves from state ballots after deadlines have passed.

While the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling was not in Kennedy’s favor, it nonetheless underscores the complexities of election law, particularly for independent candidates who attempt to navigate varying state requirements across the country.